babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » labour and consumption   » The Not So Big House

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: The Not So Big House
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 08 March 2004 04:52 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The inspiration for The Not So Big House came from a growing awareness that new houses were getting bigger and bigger but with little redeeming design merit. The problem is that comfort has almost nothing to do with how big a space is. It is attained, rather, by tailoring our houses to fit the way we really live, and to the scale and proportions of our human form.

very cool


From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 08 March 2004 05:08 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wonderful site, audra! Such pretty colours and design too. I'll take the time to read through it later. My first reaction was that it remains a single-family house, which if you are referring to an urban area still translates as sprawl, but I'm sure her ideas are applicable to a higher-density setting.

I'm wondering how we could get a broader discussion going on this entire issue, that is so important in the lives of humans (and non-humans ) and our societies. Another babbler started a topic on co-housing, I tried to start one on housing schemes in general; neither got many takers. And yet I'm sure living spaces and urbanism is a subject dear to the hearts of many of us.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 08 March 2004 05:49 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Those houses don't look so small to me, although I might be overestimating the square footage by thinking of the standard-sized rooms we're all used to.

Also, she seems to be endorsing the New Urbanism, which is a movement I have mixed feelings about. In some places, New Urbanist communities have looked like yet another attempt to escape social problems rather than face them and participate in solving them. Further, New Urbanist architecture tends to be nostalgic, even a bit kitschy, as you would expect from a movement wanting to "return" to another age (mythical) of cozy safety.

Where did I see, just in the last week or two, photos of some genuinely small, genuinely experimental houses -- just two rooms each? Anyone else run into those photos?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 10 March 2004 10:47 PM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Those houses don't look small to me either. What ever happened to the A frame or post and beam construction?

Smaller homes are so much more economical as well they are easier to furnish and maintain.
If they are even reasonably well designed they can be fun as well. Great for gardeners because they don't eat up huge plots of land.

Urbanism is a huge issue today being that rural Canada is on a steady decline due to the Government's abandonment of income redistribution and environmental depletion in favour of corporatism.

I wonder what the new houses, being constructed at mach speed today, will look like when they will need maintainace in 25 years from now? Will the suburban "Utopia" be the slums of the future when interest rates move back to more normal levels?

[ 10 March 2004: Message edited by: Pimji ]


From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 11 March 2004 10:45 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I find it suspcious that the basic kind of construction-- foundation, two by four frame with drywall on the inside and whatever on the outside is the technique from Miami to Churchill and further north.

Such a structure can't possibly be the most efficient in both extreems.

People in Central America had difficulty adopting the idea of putting straw between the building materials (mud brick) as a means to make them more earthquake resistant. In spite of the evidence before their eyes, there was great reluctance in departing from the way things were built by previous generations.

On the surface, that seems not so bright, and it is, really.

But underneath it all, we cling to the conventional ways of building houses for the same reasons, in the face evidence that says we should be doing things differently.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
HalfAnHourLater
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4641

posted 11 March 2004 12:21 PM      Profile for HalfAnHourLater     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
But underneath it all, we cling to the conventional ways of building houses for the same reasons, in the face evidence that says we should be doing things differently.

So true everywhere in the world, not just in N.America, with the exception of several forward thinking regions.--> A lot has to do with the general lack of understanding in the advancements in the capabilites modern material and shape/heat/structure analysis which have optimised the design process.

Take for example the fact that we can now calculate the exact location of the sun in the sky at any given instant; from a design perspective this means that the nort-south and east-west sides of buildings need not be symmetrical for optimum construction/aesthetic and so on. Very interesting, a thread on urbanism and urban design would be great!

[ 11 March 2004: Message edited by: HalfAnHourLater ]


From: So-so-so-solidarité! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 11 March 2004 12:49 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:

But underneath it all, we cling to the conventional ways of building houses for the same reasons, in the face evidence that says we should be doing things differently.

The main reason we stick to 2x4 frame houses in North America has to much do with building codes. Try getting creative and you can run right up against a beligerant building inspector whose job is to enforce the code.


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 11 March 2004 01:01 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Small House Society.

This book looks great, too.

[ 11 March 2004: Message edited by: audra trower williams ]


From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 11 March 2004 01:16 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I just looked at the houses in the first link, and they sure as heck don't look small to me.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 March 2004 01:18 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Look at the tiny houses, though, in Tiny Houses (second of audra's links in her second post).

Those are tiny!


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 11 March 2004 01:21 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, I know. I was talking about the first link in the whole thread.

Yes, some of those houses in her other two links were pretty teensy, like that one that fits on the back of a trailer.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 11 March 2004 01:47 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Further, New Urbanist architecture tends to be nostalgic, even a bit kitschy, as you would expect from a movement wanting to "return" to another age (mythical) of cozy safety.

Well, that's a question of taste. Personally, I like old-fashioned looking things. I like them a *lot* better than all those hypermodern looking things with chrome and either incredible spareness or glitz up to here. I want to live in, and sit on, something that looks and feels like a home or a chair, not an experiment.

Now if that old-fashioned looking home is heated by geothermal and has reasonably unobtrusive solar panelling and is very well insulated, that's cool too. But I see no reason for stuff to look all space agey just because it has modern features.

I also prefer old-fashioned to the horrible ubiquitous pastel look we have all over the flippin' place in Vancouver. Makes me want to retch.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 11 March 2004 02:11 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I like old things too.

My main objection to certain aspects of the "New Urbanism" isn't that, it is more that they are reproducing "town areas" in the midst of suburbia, at prices that prevent there from being a mix of incomes and backgrounds. But they do tend to mean less sprawl, certainly less sprawl and waste than monster homes on huge plots of land.

I like the little houses, but they remain single-family (or single-person) homes, hence they contribute to sprawl and make it next to impossible to build neighbourhoods where public transport, walking and cycling are the rule and private motor vehicles at most an adjunct. Thus in urban areas they don't really solve the problem - though at least they would prevent the current trend of buying huge houses, badly designed, and filling them up with junk. There are other ways of providing privacy for the different members of a household and making it practical to live - and often to work - in a smaller, better-designed space.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Privateer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3446

posted 11 March 2004 02:46 PM      Profile for Privateer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The trend in Halifax is sadly towards huge mansions on the edge of town on lots of one or more acres. What does a suburbanite need with a three acre lot? They're not farming. It baffles the mind. And when city hall tries to reign in the madness as it can't provide the services quick enough, there is a huge protest by the developers and their customers. In the end these developments will be very bad investments, I believe, as they won't hold or increase their value like a city residence. What's even weirder is many of these mansions are only home to two or three people - these houses often have more bathrooms than residents. Its like people are being excessive and wasteful just because they can do it.
From: Haligonia | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
HalfAnHourLater
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4641

posted 11 March 2004 05:43 PM      Profile for HalfAnHourLater     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cougyr:

The main reason we stick to 2x4 frame houses in North America has to much do with building codes. Try getting creative and you can run right up against a beligerant building inspector whose job is to enforce the code.


As well as the entire construction industry which has optimised and standardised the production of 2x4 houses (see the suburbs) eventhough many bureauocrats and experts have tried to pass newer/better building codes. (see the R2000 house building codes, that are having the darndest time being implemented)! The supermega housing construction industry wants to churn out the match stick houses like on a production line...brick and motar or stone is much slower to build, especially when proper insulation is considered!

[ 11 March 2004: Message edited by: HalfAnHourLater ]


From: So-so-so-solidarité! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 11 March 2004 11:58 PM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So true.
Developers hire contractors which are similar to assembly line workers, paid by piecework, using time motion study to manufacture goods as quickly and efficiently as possible. It is fast and the pay is excellent however it also takes the imaginative and spiritual element out of work and living.

It also occurred to me that all new houses also have air conditioning, which keeps people inside during the wonderful summers we have. Not to mention the fact the new burbs better designed for cars instead of people. I saw an old NFB film about 30 years ago that had aliens looking down and thinking earth was populated by cars.

The other thought I have is that rural Canada is also demolishing its barns mainly due to economics ie insurance rates. I believe the US has a better system for keeping its heritage buildings but I can’t remember what it is.


From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 12 March 2004 11:25 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It seems to me that using earth as insulation, and using cement as the supporting structure is the energy efficient way to go, and with berms you could do that without having that "underground" feeling to the place. A southern exposure with lots of glass, some deciduous trees for passive solar heating and cooling would seem to me to be an appropriate use of local materials which wouldn't require a whole bunch of stuff for insulation or technology to heat and cool the place.


It used to be that economics made you select a house no bigger than your needs, but looking at some never developments around London, it seems to me that big houses (often on undersized lots) are being used as a status symbol.

Conspicuous consumption. Now there's a character flaw.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 12 March 2004 12:02 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But none of this has solved the key problem (in urban areas) of the single-family, free-standing house. By definition inimical to the development of public transport and similar socialised services.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Privateer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3446

posted 12 March 2004 01:27 PM      Profile for Privateer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
But none of this has solved the key problem (in urban areas) of the single-family, free-standing house. By definition inimical to the development of public transport and similar socialised services.

Single-family houses with 30 foot frontages as can be found in older neighborhoods do allow for a fairly dense population. I like the idea of mixed developments with apartments, condos, row housing, duplexes and modest-sized single-family houses on small lots. Also, what appears to be large single-family houses in older neighbourhoods is frequently multi-unit.


From: Haligonia | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca